HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed
June 28, 2016
Item No. 1
June 28, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher( jimmosher(cDyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 1. Minutes for the June 14, 2016 Study Session and Regular
Meeting
The page numbers below refer to Volume 63 of the draft minutes. The passages in italics are from the
draft with suggested changes shown in strikeout underline format.
Page 19: Item SS5, paragraph 3: "Mayor Pro Tem UuFdesh Muldoon suggested dropping
the level down one level." [I seem to recall it was Council member Selich who initially suggested
this, and the Mayor Pro Tem may have agreed?]
Page 27: paragraph 3 before Item XIV: "Council Member Curry discussed the Planning
Commission nominees and stated he would also like to nominate Debbi Stevens and Tim
Stek Stoaks." [note: the following paragraph says "Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon objected to
Council Member Curry's comments," but the comment being objected to is not in the minutes]
Page 29: paragraph 1 before close of public hearing: "In response to Mayor Dixon's
question, City Manager Kiff stated he had provided the lease agreement to the School
District but he had not heard back."
Page 29: after Straw Vote (paragraph 4 from end): "Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon returned to
the dais." [?]
Page 34: line 1: "Gavin Sacks questioned whether the plans had changed significantly
en ou h to rehear the entire case."
Note: the above comments are confined to suggested corrections to a few obvious typos I
noticed in reading the draft minutes. What is not said, but is hinted at in the above bracketed
comments, is that these are, throughout, very poor minutes, not unlike those submitted to the
Finance Committee at its June 2nd meeting.
Rather than providing a clear, concise and accurate summary of what happened, it is as if
someone with a marginal grasp of the subject matter had chosen to fill pages by taking
fragments of speech, almost at random and often out of content, and transcribing them in way
frequently so garbled as to be unintelligible. As a result, the minutes give those who were not at
the meeting only a slight and likely inaccurate impression of what was said, and even for those
who were there, much is missing.
That said, I think it is staff's role, not mine, to adjust the minutes to match the video record. This
is especially true since staff changed the internet postings of the Council videos so they can
only be viewed online, and are no longer available to the public, like me, for download to a
device with adequate controls for efficient offline comparison to the written record. As a result, I
encountered many statements that struck me as inaccurate or incomplete, but did not attempt to
compare most of them to the video.
June 28, 2016, Council Agenda Item 1 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Hopefully a few examples of the inadequacy of the draft minutes will suffice, but similar
problems occur throughout these minutes:
Page 19: (above) — the video suggests it was, indeed, Council member Selich rather than
the Mayor Pro Tem who made the comment. In addition, public comment on the matter
was opened and closed with no indication in the minutes.
Page 28: "Council Member Petros announced that the Finance Committee will meet on
June 16, 2016, at 4:00 p.m., in the Newport Coast Conference Room, in order to discuss
the budget." [emphasis added] -- in fact, the video shows Council Member Petros
announced the Finance Committee had finally finished with the budget, and would be
meeting to discuss other matters. In other words, everything but the budget — the opposite
of what the minutes say.
Page 33: "Council Member Petros stated current resident conservation would be used for
future development." -- The video indicates Council Member Petros was instead seeking
an assurance that future development was not being planned to happen on the backs of
current residents' conservation efforts.
Page 34: Item 31: "He stated that safety was the number one item in the plan, yet the
tragedy occurred." [emphasis added] -- What plan? No plan is mentioned on the agenda
or in the minutes, making the substance of the comment unintelligible.